nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Complaint upheld against Derek Mooney for 'supporting same-sex marriage' on air

loh_oro

What is wrong with people how can a complaint like that be upheld, ridiculous!

I cant post links yet but its an article on the indo

Find more posts tagged with

i'm so angry

liberal outrage

Quick Links

Comments

eviltwin

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I didn't know Derek Mooney was gay.

You would have to wonder what kind of people would take the time to complain about something like that?

It was someone from one of those pop up Catholic right wing groups. You would think they would know that a show presented by a gay dj would have a pro SSM slant, why listen to something about a gay couple if you find the subject matter offensive in the first place. They must just listen waiting to be outraged.

losthorizon

marienbad wrote: »

How is this a big deal. it is not preventing anything being said ,just saying in an issue of current public debate the opposition viewpoint must be heard.

Can't see the fuss and I am on the for side.

The trouble is though that people mention every day on the radio and on the TV that they are in loving, caring heterosexual relationships and marriages. We then dont hear that you can have same thing in a homosexual relationship (we dont have the marriage bit yet). And why should we have to hear it? But by this logic we should or else are we going to have complaints going into the broadcasting commission.

It sounds to me that the person who complained wanted to be offended. And you always get people like that.

And remember this wasnt a political debate as such.

Stella Virgo

ScienceNerd wrote: »

I can imagine this before the 6.1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Mbxe33BYW8

very catchy

....

marienbad

ScumLord wrote: »

So basically they're saying gays can't discuss their rights without religious oversight?

No I am not saying that, gay marriage is right now an open question and a political question , we may not think so or agree that it should be. But it is - that is why we are having a referendum.

Whatever we might think of having a 'balanced' discussion look at America where Regan struck down those broadcasting rules and they ended up with Fox news and Rush Limbaugh et al poisoning every issue to the point of paralysis, all following a rightwing agenda

Knasher

takamichinoku wrote: »

What exactly does a complaint being upheld entail? Establishing precedent?

Well the precedent it would establish is that the rules around balance from broadcasters during elections and referendums applies after the referendum has been announced, even if a date hasn't been set yet.

I'm very much on the yes side in this issue, but at the same time I do see the reasoning behind requiring broadcasters to be impartial in the run up to referendums, and it is pretty clear cut that RTE broke the code. So the only question would be if the code was in place yet.

marienbad

Knasher wrote: »

Well the precedent it would establish is that the rules around balance from broadcasters during elections and referendums applies after the referendum has been announced, even if a date hasn't been set yet.

I'm very much on the yes side in this issue, but at the same time I do see the reasoning behind requiring broadcasters to be impartial in the run up to referendums, and it is pretty clear cut that RTE broke the code. So the only question would be if the code was in place yet.

bang on 100%

Custardpi

Personally as someone who supports marriage equality & is looking forward to voting yes whenever they fix a date for a referendum on it I'm actually quite happy about this decision & if it leads to anti ssm campaigners having a greater voice on RTE then so much the better. Regardless of what's presented on RTE there is a growing groundswell of opinion in favour of equality on this issue. Given that reason & logic are on the side of gay marriage being legalised a full & open debate can only benefit the Yes campaign as the No side will be forced to retreat behind faith based arguments.

In the absence of their voice being properly heard during the debate it is likely that those opposed to gay marriage will argue that the public were hoodwinked by a biased media & that if they had only been exposed to the Christian position more they would have made a more sensible choice. BS of course but you might be surprised at the number who would believe it, thus bolstering conspiracy theories & a persecution complex among many on the Right, which can be useful recruitment & motivational tools. I hope that those arguing against ssm are given a more than fair crack at the whip in the media, even to the disadvantage of the Yes campaign so that when they lose they'll know that despite their best efforts an increasingly secular & independent minded Irish public have heard, understood & rejected their arguments. With luck this will help further diminish the power of right wing Catholicism in this country.

vicwatson

The complainant, Donal O’Sullivan – Latchford

Never trust a man (or woman) with a double barrel name

vicwatson

Pappacharlie wrote: »

I have no problem with same sex marriage but Derek Mooney is an arrogant little ??it. He is an opinionated pompous little ??ick.
On a recent show he said he went to his sisters friends wedding and did not give any gift to the people who invited him. He then went on to complain about someone who did not pay their way on a night out. Could he not see the relationship between the two situations. He makes me sick!!!

What a mean tosser????

He also recently spoke, live on air, about riding his bicycle home from work with no saddle, in a carry-on sort of way, get offa the radio

Hitchens

vicwatson wrote: »

Never trust a man (or woman) with a double barrel name

...or anam as Gaeilge

Sky King

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

f*ck censorship .

:pac:

hatrickpatrick

Piliger wrote: »

The broadcasting standards watchdog is clearly completely out of control. This is becoming a circus of censorship and bigotry.

Exactly. I'd almost consider it a badge of credibility to be censored by them now. "Derek Mooney, award winning presenter with X years of experience at RTE and a proud censoree of the BAI" :rolleyes:

conorh91

ScumLord wrote: »

Why should it be, is every conversation on radio to be preplanned and censored? Radio hosts shouldn't have to check in with religious media groups before they can talk to a gay person.

I don't think they'd appreciate an atheist being on call every time god get's mentioned on the radio.

That's not a legitimate comparison.

Most people are missing the fundamental point. The content was determined to be "news and current affairs content".

That's because the topic under discussion was statistical information which had been released from a State agency, and furthermore, a topic of legitimate public debate regarding which a referendum is due to be held.

It is necessary that where broadcast material is "news and current affairs" that it be broadcast in an evenhanded way.

If it were a lifestyle feature about gay relationships, or God, or stay-at-home mothers, or the Eurovision, the broadcaster would be under no obligation to broadcast material with the same level of fairness to both 'sides'.

hatrickpatrick

Sky King wrote: »

:pac:

:D:D:D:D Only just got that

hatrickpatrick

conorh91 wrote: »

That's not a legitimate comparison.

Most people are missing the fundamental point. The content was determined to be "news and current affairs content".

That's because the topic under discussion was statistical information which had been released from a State agency, and furthermore, a topic of legitimate public debate regarding which a referendum is due to be held.

It is necessary that where broadcast material is "news and current affairs" that it be broadcast in an evenhanded way.

If it were a lifestyle feature about gay relationships, or God, or stay-at-home mothers, or the Eurovision, the broadcaster would be under no obligation to broadcast material with the same level of fairness to both 'sides'.

...So what about current affairs related opinion columns in newspapers then? It wasn't a news bulletin...

ScumLord

marienbad wrote: »

No I am not saying that,

Sorry I wasn't accusing you of saying anything, it was directed at the Christian group.

JONJO THE MISER

The complaint was right to be upheld, they should of had someone opposing the view on instead of a big love in for the gay marriage crowd.

TerrorFirmer

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...So what about current affairs related opinion columns in newspapers then? It wasn't a news bulletin...

According to the code presenters are supposed to remain objective unless they're playing devils advocate in the absence of an opposing voice.

The ruling was basically that in the context of current affairs, too much weight was given to one viewpoint, and the broadcaster was wrong to take a side.

The 'current affairs' bit is the crucial bit.

You can't compare live current affair programming to the print media.

ScumLord

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

You can't compare live current affair programming to the print media.

You can't really expect live debate to stay on a restricted path either. I'm in favour of even debate but that doesn't mean the minority view should be oppressed unless it has supervision from the controlling opinion.

This move in particular was a move by a Christian group to silence what they see as an evil viewpoint.

TerrorFirmer

ScumLord wrote: »

You can't really expect live debate to stay on a restricted path either. I'm in favour of even debate but that doesn't mean the minority view should be oppressed unless it has supervision from the controlling opinion.

This move in particular was a move by a Christian group to silence what they see as an evil viewpoint.

Not sure what you're saying there because there's nothing saying it has to stay on a restricted path.

All the code asks is that broadcasters remain impartial and give both sides a voice. They can't and weren't trying to silence it. The complaint is that they weren't afforded air time as an opposing view which is relevant to an upcoming referendum - that's the vital bit.

I do see where the BAI is coming from on this. It's really the same as the abortion issue, in that both sides are supposed to get equal air time and they deserve the right to have a presenter remain impartial in the debate.

If broadcasters started taking sides on everything it'd be a disaster.

conorh91

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...So what about current affairs related opinion columns in newspapers then? It wasn't a news bulletin...

The relevant BAI rules don't apply to newspapers.

Mooney could have offered an opinion comparable to an opinion piece in a newspaper, but he would have had to preface his remarks by clearly stating, at the outset, that the views expressed were a personal opinion and that the material which was about to follow was not to be considered 'current affairs'.

If Mooney had done so, the complaint could not be upheld.

Mooney did not do so, and the material which followed was presumed to be 'news and current affairs'. That is the crux of the issue.

marienbad

ScumLord wrote: »

You can't really expect live debate to stay on a restricted path either. I'm in favour of even debate but that doesn't mean the minority view should be oppressed unless it has supervision from the controlling opinion.

This move in particular was a move by a Christian group to silence what they see as an evil viewpoint.

You can't have an even debate if the opposing view is not represented. It makes no difference what kind of group they were or what their motives were.

In the long run this can only favour those pushing a progressive agenda .

Manach

It is important for an organisation that is supposedly neutral to have that balance, so that one of shows is used to present a one-sided attack on traditional marriage and undermine its institution then there could have no other result - no matter how much that sticks in the craw of the PC cultural revisionists, that there objections to such social engineering that have an equal voice.

fran17

ScumLord wrote: »

You can't really expect live debate to stay on a restricted path either. I'm in favour of even debate but that doesn't mean the minority view should be oppressed unless it has supervision from the controlling opinion.

This move in particular was a move by a Christian group to silence what they see as an evil viewpoint.

maybe if the Christian group,or any group,had a voice in the debate then they would have no grounds for objection?

RobertKK

We will be having a referendum on it, the state broadcaster is not suppose to be taking sides.
If one is giving personal opinion they should state it as such.

loh_oro

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

The complaint was right to be upheld, they should of had someone opposing the view on instead of a big love in for the gay marriage crowd.

fran17 wrote: »

maybe if the Christian group,or any group,had a voice in the debate then they would have no grounds for objection?

When their is a heterosexual couple on a TV program and the presenter wishes them well can I complain because I don't want them to be happy and no one was there to represent my view ?

marienbad

Manach wrote: »

It is important for an organisation that is supposedly neutral to have that balance, so that one of shows is used to present a one-sided attack on traditional marriage and undermine its institution then there could have no other result - no matter how much that sticks in the craw of the PC cultural revisionists, that there objections to such social engineering that have an equal voice.

Well said and I hope you will be first to the barricades to defend the rights of gay people to defend their position the next time they are accused of 'pushing an agenda' or 'in your face' or 'the gay lifestyle' etc no matter how much it sticks in the craw of the patriarchial ultramontane tradionitionalists .

After all what is sauce for the goose ....

TerrorFirmer

loh_oro wrote: »

When their is a heterosexual couple on a TV program and the presenter wishes them well can I complain because I don't want them to be happy and no one was there to represent my view ?

That's so ridiculously vague and nothing like the situation under discussion.

People don't seem to realize that the issue is with current affairs content and objectivity and nothing whatsoever to do with gay people. The same thing could have, and has in the past, have happened if he did the same thing with any other imaginable current affairs topic.

Kidchameleon

Why are people making this into a religious argument? There are plenty of atheists against same sex marriage.

Harry Palmr

Well bugger me sideways

“It does not automatically follow that every examination of this area should turn into a debate about the rights and wrongs or otherwise of homosexuality and gay marriage,” RTE told the BAI.

and does every discussion about Hetro marriage now have to be balanced with same sex marriage?